You have more than enough information to answer this

Ayy lmao.

I'm pointing out that your demand is illogical. Mathematics is not the only valid language to effectively communicate ideas.

Otherwise, we'd be posting with only mathematical symbols. Try it some time.

This obsession with mathematics is also fucking masturbatory level idiocy.

I guess next you'll require I translate all of Martin Luther King's speeches into Korean.

Writing what I did in words is just fine. Anyone can understand it. If you can explain something simply enough that other people can understand it, that suggests that you understand what you're talking about.

If you refuse to read what I link, you are refusing to observe. If you refuse to observe, you refuse science.

Is how autists see the world?

writing a matlab code, brb

Good idea.
Can confirm
You don't have to participate, but its obviously because you don't see the patterns.

There is literally not enough time in the day to read all the papers that cranks churn out and still function as a member of society. Let's assume for a few sentences that what you wrote is perfectly correct. Your piece, written on a futurama message board, is completely indistinguishable from crankery.
Now, no longer assuming what you wrote is correct, what is a physical phenomenon that your model predicts that is testable? I'm going to take the severe, but not extreme, view that a model is useful if and only if it offers some empirical avenue for testing. Even if we lack the technology to test it, it should be testable in principle.

What is a physical phenomenon that, if observed, would lend strong credence towards the credibility of your model more than other competing models? If there are none, then your model is meaningless.

Here's an example. All observed phenomenon are the direct work of a supremely powerful evil genius who only seeks to trick us. In fact, no physical laws exist. It's all a ruse.
This model perfectly explains all phenomenon. It is also completely useless and worth nothing because it provides no avenue of investigation. It makes no real testable predictions.

If your model is correct and useful, it should make some testable predictions that give it credence over other models. What are they?

This guy gets it.

Before I begin to attempt this, can I assume the normal laws of conventional arithmetic apply here? E.g. commutativity of addition and multiplication, distributivity, etc.

Yes

Good point. And these could just be regular numbers in some large base also.

Bump

Aliens would use RPN

...

i would guess base ten, but it contains irrationals

Don't bother, I already tried explaining this to him that if his model can't handle the actual mechanics then it isn't worth shit. He apparently thinks that everything and anything can be conveyed in the English language, he's like the reverse of a logical positivist.

It doesn't model shit and is worthless, you are worthless. I was being nice in the last thread, but you really know how to go beyond the pale.

On the right track, but none of the symbols represent irrationals or fractions.

(No square root of 21, no 103/3)

You don't belong here.

actually there is an error in the one that you call 103/3. It is actually supposed to say this.

u sure thats the only error there?

Nope, but I'll keep you posted as I spot them.